Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 12 September 2010

Template:IECOLL-talk

• WT:IE
• WT:IWNB

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Ireland and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Archives

WikiProject Ireland September 2006-August 2007 September 2007-January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 1 April 2008-17 April 2008 April 2008-September 2008 October 2008-December 2008 January 2009-April 2009 May 2009-July 2009 August 2009-October 2009 November 2009- Irish Wikipedians' notice board August 2004-September 2004 September 2004 October 2004 21st October - 7th November 2005 November 2004 - January 2005 February 2005 March 2005-April 2005 May 2005 May 2005-September 2009 September 2005-November 2005 November 2005-February 2006 February 2006-April 2006 April 2006-August 2006 August 2006-November 2006 November 2006-February 2007 February 2007-July 2007 August 2007-October 2007 Oct 07-Early/Mid Nov 07 November 2007 November 2007-February 2008 March 2008-April 2008 Northern Irish Wikipedians' notice board February 2006-July 2006 April 2006-November 2009

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edit this box

Baronies in Lead section (and RC civil parishes)

Recently some users have been adding the barony and (sometimes the Roman Catholic diocese) into the lead section of some Irish towns and villages. For example, Nenagh's intro now reads:

Nenagh (; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is a town in the barony of Ormond Lower, North Tipperary in Ireland. It is the administrative centre of North Tipperary County Council. It is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe. In 2006 it had a recorded population of 7415.

whereas from its creation in September 2003 until April 2010, it was similar to this:

Nenagh (; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is the county town of North Tipperary, Ireland. It is the administrative capital of North Tipperary and has a population of 7,415.

I have no objection to this material being added to articles, just not in the lead section. Baronies are historical subdivisions of counties dating from the middle ages and ceased to exist legally in 1898. The only current legal subdivisions of counties are Local Electoral Areas and District Electoral Divisions. I think it is confusing and misleading to mention baronies in the lead section and it implies they have some sort of legal status or that they are in every day use, when they are not. Have you ever asked anyone from Ireland whereabouts they are from and received a barony as the answer? If you are going to put in baronies then you could put in the ancient Gaelic kingdoms as well. The common usage for towns and villages is: X is a town in County Y in Ireland. I propose that any mention of a barony take place in the history section not the lead.

Also, I see no reason why one religion (albeit the majority one) gets mentioned in the lead. Surely Nenagh (and other towns) are in parishes/dioceses of the Church of Ireland, and other religions. Again, I have no objection to this information but it should not go in the lead as it implicitly gives the RC church some sort of special postion. Snappy (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Retain. The purpose of the inclusion of the barony is not to give a pretended legal validity to the barony, it is to assist the reader in identifying the location. This can often be very important for the smaller entities where townlands of the same name exist in the same county: only the barony can distinguish them. So they serve a useful purpose in leading the reader down a logical path or hierarchy based on in creasing levels of geographic specificity. In those cases where the convention (not to give it too grand a word) is used, the triple explanation from barony to county to state, is clickable. This is particularly useful for those readers pursuing genealogical research from overseas. In many cases, the records from Ellis Island, for example, will include the barony. The convention also puts relatively small entities like townlands in their historic context or milieu. In this regard, baronies often overlap with the ancient Gaelic kingdoms mentioned above (Template:Lang-ga). Again, the main article on Barony (Ireland) is very good at setting this historico-geographical context. Should there be any doubt in the reader's mind, he can click the link that is always present per the convention. If he does not click it, then he knows what it means. Let's not attribute too much ignorance to the readers. Regarding the RC religion, you mention one very good reason why it should be in the lead: it's "the majority one". Common usage would lead us to conclude that most people would expect to see it there. Many articles on small towns make little reference to anything not associated with the church which is generally the focus for most community life. To pretend otherwise in the case of rural Ireland is just a po-faced. You also mention another reason why it should be there: it's "special postion", as mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland until 1973. Lastly, I would have no objection to the CoI parish being mentioned if somebody cares to research it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was about my edits on the similar to Northern Ireland places. Obviously someone else has taken a shine to the idea. Personally i leave it to the end of the first paragraph in the lede for example: Tobermore. On that i am currently creating barony and civil parish articles for NI. My only objection is to the use of RC parishes as subsets of a barony - a barony is divided into civil parishes (which ironically were based on CoI parishes, which where based on the original RC parishes). Civil parishes were used as a subset of a barony before partition. I don't object to the listing of the RC parish but seperate from the barony as its not associated withit unless the RoI decided to make them so. Mabuska 13:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are nearly all valid arguments for inclusion of this data but no valid reason has been advanced as to why obscure medieval sub divisions with no legal status should be mentioned in the lead. It only adds clutter and gives an implicit suggestion of legal status. All US towns are X is a town in Y County in X State, all of which have legal status. As Laurel Lodged pointed out, this information is useful to readers, but are you suggesting that if this info is in the history section and not the lead, the reader will be unable to find it? Please credit the readers with a bit more cop on.

I don't see any mention of baronies on any Irish towns official website. The other country that has baronies is England, and I don't see any English towns with baronies mentioned in the lead section, though correct me if there are examples.

The Church and State exist separately in Ireland. The special position of the RC church in the constitution from lasted from 1937-73, how is that a reason for including the RC diocese in the lead. Yes, lots of small towns / villages are defined by the local church, but today they exist separately of it. As for the RC church a focus for community life, you could make the same argument for the local GAA club. Snappy (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the lede is suppossedly to be a summary of whats in the article and many ledes contain information not found in the article. I don't see any harm in stating its historical units in the lede however i don't think they should be given so much prominence such as straight after the declaration of the place as has been done for Nenagh. It should be moved down the pecking order. Mabuska 14:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mabuska. Bjmullan (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Also they aren't obscure medieval units. Baronies where in use right up until the 18th century. Civil parishes unlike baronies haven't been formally abolihsed in NI or the RoI so they aren't obscure medieval units but units that still exist. The RoI's Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988 makes clear reference to parishes. NI was still redrawing the boundaries of its civil parishes up till the 1960s. As civil parishes are meant to be sub-divisions of a barony (even though many crossed barony boundaries), it doesn't hurt to show what barony it was a sub-division of. Mabuska 14:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely with Snappy above re mention of baronies and parishes in the lede. Of course they have a place in an article due to their religious and historical significance, but further down or in their own section. I've made many references to civil parishes in articles I've created/edited, but have usually given them a small section of their own. I've rarely mentioned baronies, though (partly because my sources have not given them much, if any, mention). Hohenloh 23:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a concensus that both the civil parish and barony material as well as the denominational parish(es) material are GOOD THINGS. The notion that the civil parish and barony material is medieval and without legal significance has been shown to be false. The question to be decided now is where in the article they should go. The options being presented so far are: (1) In the lead, (2) In the lead but far down the lead, (3) Elsewhere in the main body of the article. Can we have votes for 1,2, or 3 please? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not many people have commented yet, so lets not rush to close the discussion. I never said civil parishes were medieval, I said baronies were, but as Mabushka has pointed they were only used until the 18th century and finally legally abolished in 1898, which makes them over a century out of date. Also, no one has demonstrated that they are in common usage, no examples of any town website detailing its location in a barony, in the same way counties are. No examples of English towns which would have been located in baronies as well, have been given. Snappy (talk) 12:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(2) - i see no problem of it being in the lede, just not at the very start as the editor of Nenagh did. Its only a short sentence that doesn't warrant its own section and doesn't clutter the lede up. It doesn't detract from these articles: Upperlands or Tobermore when placed somewhere appropriate in the lede. Mabuska 11:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we continue to discuss this for a few more days and let other editors contribute? Why the rush to vote? After all, as the guidelines say polling discourages consensus. Snappy (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue is now just about baronies? I do have to agree that there is no common usage of them anymore. Though if and when the civil parish article is created for that civil parish the barony can be mentioned in the lede of it instead as they were formerly part of a barony.Mabuska 13:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snappy on the religious aspect - if Nenagh was the seat of a bishopric that could be in the lede, but it's just a parish and so is everywhere else. Baronies - useful for property transfers, but probably not in the lede. You could otherwise get into which constituency it is in and which boy scout area, ad nauseam, all of which belong below. N is an administratively central town - that should be in the lede.Red Hurley (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On baronies, the Place Names Database of Ireland which produces the Irish names for places to be used by the government of the Irish Republic and Place Names NI which produces authoritive Irish names for places in Northern Ireland both include the barony in any town or townland page. Mabuska 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's good enough for both governments, then it's good enough for me. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Searching for Nenagh in logainm return 2 entries, 1 for the town, 1 for the civil parish. The barony data is detailed in the civil parish entry, there is no mention of a barony in the Nenagh town entry. The wikipedia article is about the town not the civil parish. Snappy (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Nenagh other than Belfast is one of the few examples where i've been unable to find somewhere that doesn't have an associated townland with which the barony is also listed. As the townland is a subset of a civil parish which is a subset of a barony i can understand the barony declaration in that sense - though i would need to see more areas with no associated namesake townlands to be sure. Mabuska 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, logainm is a places database, which isn't the same as a Misplaced Pages article about a town. I still don't see any convincing argument for putting the barony in the lead, rather than the history section. As Red Hurley, pointed out the Dáil constituency is far more important and relevant to readers, so why shouldn't that go into the lead too. Rather than having: A is a town in County B, in the Province of C, in the barony of D, in the civil parish of E, in the Dáil constituency of F and European Parliament constituency of G etc., we could keep it short and simple and have: A is a town in County B, with all the other relevant info detailed in the rest of the article. Snappy (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Nenagh introduction again i actually see no problem with the mention of the Roman Catholic diocese as the sentence is just informing the reader that Nenagh is also a parish and what diocese it is a parish of. In terms of disambiguity i can see no problem with it. Mabuska 10:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much agreement, so how about a compromise which would be similar to below:

Nenagh (; Aonach Urmhumhan in Irish) is the county town of North Tipperary in Ireland. It is the administrative capital of North Tipperary and in 2006 it had a recorded population of 7,415. It is in the barony of Ormond Lower, and is also a parish in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Killaloe.

Any thoughts? Snappy (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, seems that no-one has any objections, so this seems like the best solution, and similar to Mabuska's proposal. Snappy (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this a consensus then? No need to proceed to the vote that Snappy requested be postponed pending a fuller discussion? I didn't hear the clanging of the division bells. Was I asleep for that part? Well I suppose that I can live with Snappy's fait accompli but I am skeptical of the general applicability of the formula. For those one-horse-towns (not to mention townlands) that contain nothing particularly remarkable, I foresee this formula coming unstuck. Let's monitor developments for a while. We might need to re-visit this "consensus" in the near future. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your obsession with voting, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy! I asked twice if anyone objected and no one replied, even though the main contributors in the debate were posting elsewhere on this page, so I assumed it to a sign of consent and yes a consensus (one without sarcastic quotes). I don't understand how the formula is not generally applicable, this is how 90% of Irish towns are at present, i.e. the ones where you haven't inserted a barony mention in the first sentence. Of course, this consensus maybe revisited at any time in the future. Snappy (talk) 07:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Like children everywhere, Stephen Dedalus wrote his details in his geography textbook as follows:

Stephen Dedalus

Class of Elements

Clongowes Wood College

Sallins

County Kildare

Ireland

Europe

The World

The Universe

We do not need unwieldy and frustrating article leads that read like this: Bekan is a village in the former Parliamentary Division of South Mayo, in the former Poor Law Union of Claremorris, in the former Constabulary District of Claremorris, Sub-District of Cloontumper, in the former District Electoral Division of Bekan, in the Townland of Bekan, in the former Barony of Bekan, in the former Civil Parish of Bekan, in the Roman Catholic Parish of Bekan, in County Mayo, in Connacht Province, Ireland. But such information is part of the story of Bekan and, where known, belongs in body of the article.

As Snappy argues, the lead is an introduction, and as such, should contain only summary location information, such as Bekan is a village and townland near Ballyhaunis in County Mayo, Ireland. Including other details in the lead such as barony or civil parish would usually be an arbitrary and unnecessary selection from the many categories available.

The reasons for including these data at all is that administrative divisions exist or existed and are part of the narrative, structure and definition of a place, past and present; and many now-obsolete divisions appear on old census forms and other documents and are useful data for historical and genealogical researchers, and interested people generally. --O'Dea (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hello everyone, for those of you interested in the flora and fauna of the beautiful island of Ireland you are welcome to come help out with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland. It's quite a small WikiProject and we're a little lacking in Ireland enthusiasts at the moment so it would be great to see some new faces. The project deals with organisation of articles regarding plants, animals, conservation and everything in between. Hope to see you there! Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at "Category:Fauna of Ireland", why do they leave out human beings? Surely we are biota as much as any natterjack toad.Red Hurley (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Place Ireland adjustment - adding the country

A discussion has been opened here about adding the country a county belongs to into the infobox. This discussion can be found here. Mabuska 11:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland

Hi I've kicked off a debate about the notability of Gravity Anomalies of Britain and Ireland. This article came to the attention of the rather arcane group of editors at WP:BISE (me amongst them) who debate at length the worthiness of various usages of the term British Isles. My personal view is that the article as it stands is not notable as it is not part of a geographic series of articles, nor is the subject matter of any particular note. I thought it might be useful to ask this projects opinion, before taking to WP:AFD.

This image seems to show that the Britain and Ireland anomalies are related to their position at the edge of the Continental Shelf.

I think this article actually provides a template for what the article should be. It is primarily a list, so it should really take the naming style List of xxx.... No one has yet produced any evidence that gravity anomalies in Ireland or the UK are in any way notable, other than that the regional geological societies publish regional geological maps. If the geographical location of gravity anomolies is notable in wikipedian terms (and I'm not yet convinced that they are) then the starting point should be a global list of them with regional headings/subheadings. If the list gets too long it can be split off into regional articles, and we might - just might - come back to having a Gravity anomalies of BI article at some distant point in the future. But for now we only need one article for the entire globe, if at all.

We'd appreciate any input you might have here.

Thanks Fmph (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I've taken it to AFD. Contribute there if you wish. Fmph (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Misplaced Pages on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Lacy's Canal

Hiya. I found this article, but can find no sources for Lacy's canal. I did, however, find something saying that the Joe Dolan bridge went over the River Brosna. I think this article might just be completely wrong. Could somebody check it out, and delete / reference as appropriate. Cheers, Chris (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I found this article in the "Westmeath Examiner". It mentions a "Joe Dolan Memorial Bridge", but it seems to be a by-pass rather than a crossing over a canal. http://www.westmeathexaminer.ie/news/mullingar/articles/2010/07/28/3998828-september-launch-for-joe-dolan-memorial-bridge/ Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Irish Counties: feudal entities or not?

Is it accurate to describe an Irish County as a feudal entity? Clearly, in the Republic, feudalism has been abolished, but that's not to say that the modern counties which are the basis for local government did not (with a few exceptions) derive from older entites, which could in turn be described as feudal. Can this be taken as a given? Or must evidence be presented that King John (or whomever) created County X, and that he gave grants of lands (baronies) to Barons A, B & C who in turn sub-infeudated it to their vassals etc etc? Must one state when the county ceased to be feudal in nature and became just part of the administrative furniture? It seems that the word feudalism was coined in the 17th century after feudalism has ceased to exist. Is this fact an impediment to attaching the description to an Irish County? May the description of feudal only be used by sub-divisions of counties (e.g. baronies)? What say you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

MacCotter (Medieval Ireland: Territorial, Political and Economic Divisions) is your man for evidence. And yes, of course we need evidence: WP:V is quite important. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC) P.S. I have a copy of the book and so, I think, does Fergananim.

Civil parishes or denominational churches?

There are 20 pages in the "Category:Civil parishes in Dublin". Two seem to have a direct bearing on the subject matter (List of subdivisions of County Dublin and Balscadden). The remaining 18 are entitled St Werburgh's Church, Dublin etc. However, the contents of the articles, many well researched and referenced, dwell almost exclusively on the bricks and mortar aspect of the church with some (perhaps one sided) sections on the church's history and famous parishoners. At no time does the article describe the local government function of the civil parish of the same name. It does not place the civil parish in its context of barony. t makes only passing reference to those citizens of the civil parish that were not member of a particular denomination - the Church of Ireland. Attempts to introduce such details have been reverted by the editor that has invested most work in the 18 articles. To my mind the issue is that for each of the articles, they are either about a civil parish or about a particular piece of bricks and mortar currently controlled by a particular denomination. The choices then become: (1) If it's about a civil parish, then it needs to contain information about the civil parish, barony and county. The name should also reflect that purpose e.g. "St. X (civil parish)" or "Civil parish of St. X". (2) If the article's purpose is closer to a particular denomination desription, then why does it have a category of civil parish? By straddling both at the moment, it is giving unsatisfactory service to both sides. What say you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at List of subdivisions of County Dublin i can see what you mean. Many of the links don't link to an article about the parish - which i assume may be the fault of the editor of the list article for not using disambiguity to make the distinction. I think its either add the information into the lede for example; is also a civil parish in... or create a stub article and link the list article to it.

The category those churches are in should also be changed to a sub-category of the civil parish one such as; Category: Church's in parish of .... Though technically churches aren't connected to civil parishes - just ecclesiastical parishes so the church articles i don't think belong in it at all. Mabuska 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

::In fact i have removed the civil parish category from the articles as they are already categorsied under Churchs in Dublin which is more than suffice and accurate. Mabuska 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact i'm not going to bother at the moment, the articles are bit of a trouble being about a specific church then detailing the parish - when i think both should be seperate articles. Mabuska 22:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered this and I suspect that a certain editor has jumped the gun in making multiple deletions without at least going to the talk pages - also I feel a bit peeved that only articles created by me have been targeted.

I would dispute the assertion made by the first editor above on articles created by me: "many well researched and referenced, dwell almost exclusively on the bricks and mortar aspect of the church with some (perhaps one sided) sections on the church's history and famous parishoners". Firstly, IMHO, all have been well researched and referenced, are objective, and they contain a good deal of historical information including images and maps dealing with all aspects of the church, parish, parishioners, etc., not easily available nowadays, as anyone can see on reading them.

On a point mentioned by the second editor, articles about churches, as about universities or hospitals or whatever, if they have any aspiration to quality, invariably mention the history, personalities, parish, ministry, current activities, etc. of the institution. For example St. Patrick's Cathedral, Dublin's contents are:

   1 Background
   2 History
         o 2.1 Medieval
         o 2.2 1600s
         o 2.3 Dean Swift and the 1700s
         o 2.4 Knights of Saint Patrick
         o 2.5 The 19th century and restoration
   * 3 Today - national cathedral
   * 4 Status
   * 5 Dean and Chapter
         o 5.1 The offices, prebends and their current holders
         o 5.2 Ecumenical Canons
   * 6 Friends of Saint Patrick's Cathedral
   * 7 Access
   * 8 Points of Note
   * 9 Choir School and Grammar School
   * 10 Organ
         o 10.1 List of Organists
   * 11 Cathedral group of parishes

The Roman Catholic Mount St. Peter Church is a Good Article which has the following contents:

   * 1 History
         o 1.1 Diocese of Greensburg
         o 1.2 Founding and early days of St. Peter parish
         o 1.3 Italian anarchist movement
         o 1.4 World War II affects the congregation
   * 2 Relocating and building a church by hand
         o 2.1 Acquiring materials from the Mellon Mansion
         o 2.2 Building Mt. St. Peter Church
         o 2.3 Fund raising
         o 2.4 Raising the roof
   * 3 Opening of Mt. St. Peter Church
   * 4 Additions to the church
         o 4.1 The Marble Hall
         o 4.2 The rectory
         o 4.3 The Mount Saint Peter Oval
         o 4.4 Convent school
         o 4.5 Parochial school
   * 5 Pastors of Mt. St. Peter
   * 6 Congregation in the 21st century
         o 6.1 Church mission
         o 6.2 Festa Italiana
         o 6.3 Parish Organizations
               + 6.3.1 Addolorata Society
               + 6.3.2 Saint Anthony Guild
               + 6.3.3 Altar servers
               + 6.3.4 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine
               + 6.3.5 Holy Name Society
               + 6.3.6 Ushers' Club
               + 6.3.7 St. Vincent De Paul Society
               + 6.3.8 Mount Saint Peter Parish Council

Before starting writing these articles I searched for some good articles to base mine on. For example, these are Featured Articles: Stanford_Memorial_Church and St._Michael%27s_Cathedral,_Qingdao

In the German Misplaced Pages there is the candidate for Featured Article Kloster Oelinghausen , which contains a detailed history of not only the 12th-century convent but the related events and the Featured Article Kloster Leubus which contains a detailed description of the history and personalities of the Abbey.

In the Italian Misplaced Pages there are for example the Featured Articles Chiesa di San Bernardino da Siena (Amantea) and Chiesa di San Giorgio in Lemine .

In the French Misplaced Pages there are the Featured Articles Abbaye Saint-Victor de Marseille and the Abbaye de Cîteaux

There are many more with similar layout and content - it's something to aspire to. I hope I have made myself clear and welcome feedback. The issue of the civil parish is for another day - I would have thought that the information provided in the articles would have sufficed. Hohenloh 04:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly a controversial deletion of the category so its not required to bring it to discussion - its called being bold, a wiki pillar. Churchs don't belong to a civil parish, they belong to ecclesiastical parishes. Civil parishes were sub-divisions of a barony and the only religious link they have to an ecclesiastical parish is that many share the same names and boundaries as Church of Ireland parishes - but that is all - and over the times those boundaries have changed so that they aren't even the same anymore.

Also a church can hardly be a parish in itself never mind a civil parish. That is why it is called a civil parish after all - its not religious. So its misleading and thus the civil parish category should be deleted. Mabuska 10:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought that I had gone out of my way to give due credit to the articles in question. Clearly a lot of hard work went into them. The author deserves full praise (no sarcasm intended). But clearly I was not effusive enough for Hohenloh (sarcasm intended). :-) Anyway the rest of Hohenloh's contribution is off target. Nobody is questioning the merits of the articles, just their categorisation. Nobody was targeting Hohenloh's creations - they just happened to be the only ones in violation of the logic of the category. I must also reject the suggestion that "The issue of the civil parish is for another day"; rather that very issue goes to the heart of this question. Once this question is decided, the articles themselves can continue on their merry way. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

As Hohenloh has failed to respond to the critisms to back up his stance, i propose the removal of the category civil parish from the articles as ecclesiastical parishes and civil parishes are not the same thing. Mabuska 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Irish expatriates in Iceland

Anyone agree that "Category:Irish expatriates in Iceland" should be deleted? There's one entry, a footballer who has no links to Iceland. Maybe a wind-up?Red Hurley (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it - be bold. I see his last transfer was to Coventry. Send to Coventry / on ice / in Iceland ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete. I hate pointless cats and there are people on WP who just loved to add them. David Beckham belongs to 44 of them! Bjmullan (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well there is the old Icelandic legend of "Peter the Hermit", if you can believe it. An Irish monk who went to a monastery in Iceland and placed himself under the rule of the Abbott there. Then he moved to Rockall where he lived on fish, sea-birds and rainwater. Brendan the Navigator visited him, bringing bread & wine so he could say mass. Peter had no clothing but his hair had grown so long .... - but Misplaced Pages is (or tries to be) an encyclopedia - so Delete - ClemMcGann (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly.Red Hurley (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Community clarification Troubles sanctions

I've asked for community clarification on the {{Troubles restriction}} sanction. The thread is at ANI. --RA (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding the townland to the introductions of settlement articles

There is an ongoing discussion about whether the townland should be added to the introductions of settlement articles. This only applies to settlements that are named after a townland. So far, all those involved agree that they should be included, but we can't agree how they should be included. Any input would be very welcome. ~Asarlaí 23:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The other issue is as some settlements derive their name from the Anglicised name of the townland they started in, does that mean the Irish derive tag is actually required for the settlement as technically the settlement is derived from the English name of the townland rather than directly from Irish. Obviously we still state that the townland is derived from Irish of course - but placement is the main issue. Mabuska 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Stylewise IMHO all baronies and townlands should be listed below the lede. It's useful info but tends to clutter introductions.Red Hurley (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Other theories have been advanced about the origin of the Fir Bolg. Some scholars have related the name of a Celtic god with the word Bolg http://www.chenbags.com/chanel-bags-c-75.html. The Fir Bolg, according to one legend, were involved in carrying bags of earth at one point in their history, hence the "Men of Bags" interpretation. Others speculate that "Bolg" relates to a word for small boats http://www.chenbags.com/.and www.chenbags.com

Notification of renaming proposal

Should the titles of the articles on the last kings of GB and Ireland contain the phrase "of the United Kingdom"? Please see Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom#Requested move and comment there if you wish.--Kotniski (talk) 07:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Anglican Bishops of Waterford and Lismore

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Waterford and Lismore". The main article in this category, Bishop of Waterford and Lismore states: "The Bishop of Waterford and Lismore is an episcopal title which takes its name after the towns of Waterford and Lismore in the Republic of Ireland. The title was used by the Church of Ireland until 1838, and is still used by the Roman Catholic Church." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Anglican Bishops of Killala

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Killala". The main article in this category, Bishop of Killala states: "The Bishop of Killala is an episcopal title which takes its name after the town of Killala in County Mayo, Ireland. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with other bishoprics." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Anglican Bishops of Meath

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Meath". The main article in this category, Bishop of Meath states: "The Bishop of Meath is an episcopal title which takes its name after the ancient Kingdom of Meath. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains as a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with another bishopric." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Anglican Bishops of Kilmore

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Kilmore". The main article in this category, Bishop of Kilmore states: "The Bishop of Kilmore is an episcopal title which takes its name after the parish of Kilmore in County Cavan, Ireland. In the Roman Catholic Church it remains a separate title, but in the Church of Ireland it has been united with other bishoprics." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming of Category:Anglican Bishops of Kildare

Propose to rename this category to "Bishops of Kildare". The main article in this category, Bishop of Kildare states: "The Bishop of Kildare was an episcopal title which took its name after the town of Kildare in County Kildare, Ireland. The title is no longer in use by any of the main Christian churches having been united with other bishoprics. In the Roman Catholic Church, the title has been merged with that of the bishopric of Leighlin and is currently held by the Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin. In the Church of Ireland, the title has been merged with that of the bishopric of Meath and is currently held by the Bishop of Meath and Kildare." It is clear that the episcopal title is not the sole preserve of the Anglican communion. The category title therefore needs to be more inclusive or generic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Given the RC nature of Ireland, this and the other articles are aptly and usefully named as they are. I oppose the renaming of this and the other categories above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not have made the proposal unless I believed it to be broken. What's broken? That a category is overly restrictive. It needs to be more inclusive as the article upon which it depends is more inclusive. It makes no sense to have a category that only represents the Anglican part of the bishops of a bishopric. Logically, one would then be forced to create a balancing cateoryof "R.C. bishops of Kildare". Given the scarce populations of the bishops categories in general, this would be a division too far. It's not that I'm advocating ecuminisism here. More a case of acknowledging that 2 Christian traditions made use of the same title for their own purposes. In this way, the two sets of named bishopsare closely linked. A separation would be quite mis-leading. It's not like there is not already categories to distinguish between the dioceses of the different traditions. A further splitting along denominational lines would not be warrented. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Meet up planned: 25th September

Hey all -

A meet up of Irish Wikipedians is planned for the 25th of September. Everyone is invited. More details here...

--RA (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

County Tipperary categories

Laurel Lodged has marked some County Tipperary categories for speedy deletion. See User talk page for discussion, which should probably move elsewhere. jnestorius 16:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Slieve rua

I took the liberty of adding Slieve rua to this WikiProject. The article is currently a stub, but it appears to be a spam magnet. -- Blanchardb -- timed 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it spam - just somebody who isn't very experienced at creating articles and thought the info would be interesting. I'd say it'll settle down now. Scolaire (talk) 22:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this now. By co-incidence, I had deleted some categories from the page which were superflous and added the Mayo category which rolls up into all the other cats anyway. Shurely you didn;t number me among the spam merchants :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW is this Slieve Rua or Mullaghmore? --RA (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It'd be Mullaghmore if this Geograph pic is accurately described. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Misplaced Pages editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ireland/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 409 articles to be referenced. A list of all projects that are being tracked can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Splitting Dublin into its four administrative regions

User:Laurel Lodged has been unilaterally substituting links and categories relating to County Dublin with links to the four Dublin local authorities. User:Laurel Lodged claims consensus on this but I cannot find any reference. A recent discussion regarding distinction between Dublin City and County Dublin categories led to a outcome of “no consensus”. If there is a consensus to do this, and someone can point it out to me, then I will respect that. Otherwise I personally cannot accept User:Laurel Lodged’s assertion that following the Local Government Act 2001 (an incorrect citation since the new authorities were created under the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993) that Dublin is an “ex-county”. In this regard, I would point out that:

• Postal addresses in these regions continue to use “County Dublin”. Indeed, the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council itself gives its address on its own website as “County Hall, Marine Road, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin, IRELAND”;
• County Dublin remains an administrative region for the purposes of registering and taxing of motor vehicles;
• The most recent Ordnance Survey Map of Dublin (OSi Discover #50, 2010 Edition) shows county boundaries between Dublin and Wicklow, Meath and Kildare but does not show any county boundary (or any other boundary) between the four Dublin authorities;
• I am quite sure that the geography education curriculum in Ireland (North and South) still teaches that there are 32 counties in Ireland: 26 in the Republic of Ireland and 6 in Northern Ireland. For geographical purposes – and the articles that I am interested in that User:Laurel Lodged has changed are geographical articles – County Dublin continues to exist.

  Given that the Post Office, the Revenue Commissioners, the Ordnance Survey and the Department of Education all apparently consider County Dublin to exist, I think it fair to say that “official Ireland” still believes that there is a County Dublin. I would also add that, as an ex-employee of two of the four Dublin authorities, neither I nor any of my former colleagues ever considered the four authorities to have superseded the old County Dublin. In this regard I would also note that Tipperary is considered a county even though it has had the administrative regions of Tipperary North Riding and Tipperary South Riding since 1898. I trust this puts the matter to bed or do I have to bring the GAA into it? - Joe King (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not bring the GAA into it? Wasn't Tipp magnificent on Sunday? So much for "5 in a row". Not this decade.

I have not been acting unilaterally. My original proposal to merge the two Dublin cats was rejected. The model of London was advanced as the model to follow - it having many authorities in the region commonly known as London city. There was agreement to create categories for the 4 Dublin authorities and to populate them with the usual sub-categories. I have taken both these precedents as permission to do likewise to the 2 Tipperary entities. My interpretation of the policy has been upheld by the administrator User:Fastily (see my talk page for verification).

There is only one authority in the state for deciding on local governement - the Oireachtas. No other organ of stae may presume to contradict its enactments. And none do. Parts of Meath are in the Dublin postal district. Does this qualify as approval by “official Ireland" for the appropriation of Meath land by County Dublin (or indeed Fingal)? I don't think so. How An Post chooses to organise itself is up to An Post. It's admin decisions have no wider impact and are incapable of conferring legitimacy.

I agree that the OSI should get its act together. Google Maps is far more useful for deliniating the bounds of the 4 Dublin authorities.

re motor vehicles. You do know that there's a "L" and a "LK", don't you? Isn't this a tacit admission that Limerick City is a County (which it is)? So doesn't that bring the RoI tally to 27 counties if you insist on using motor vehicles taxation as your yardstick?

Educational curriculum. It probably also teaches about the Roman Empire and other great historical entities. That does not mean that Caesar's writ runs in Londinium or Ephesis these days. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the Oireachtas or anybody else has authority "for deciding on local governement" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Cats are decided by common practice and consensus, not by Acts of the Oireachtas or Civil Service departments. "County Fingal" and "County Dun Laoghaire and Rathdown" are not used in common parlance, and I am under the impression that there was no attempt to establish consensus for moving cats, just as there was no consensus for merging Dublin City and County. Cats are not the personal plaything of any editor, and justifying unilateral and unpopular moves with "The law states..." will not cut any ice here. Scolaire (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

And since you're in favour of bringing in the GAA, how many of the starting fifteen were from Tipperary North and how many from Tipperary South? Do you even know which "county" Thurles is in? I don't. Scolaire (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

As Scolaire says this decision depends on what the consensus at Misplaced Pages is. You have not been able to point to a consensus decision regarding these categories or to changing wikilinks in articles from County Dublin to SDCC, DLR, whatever. The views of one administrator are irrelevant in this context. Nor can you dismiss the evidence of An Post, OSI and D/Education. They are all bodies that exist under statute of the Oireachtas and carry out their functions in accordance with the legislation enacted by the Oireachtas. No member of the Oireachtas has said that these bodies are wrong to refer to Dublin as a county. You have ignored my point that at least one of these authorities describes itself as being in County Dublin, an entity you claim does not exist. As far as I am concerned you are nothing more than a vandal. - Joe King (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and your suggestion that Google Maps is superior to OSI is laughable. This is the same Google that thinks Derrybawn Mountain is in fact Trooperstown Hill. And has a rather vague idea as to where the summits of many of Ireland's mountains actually are. - Joe King (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurles is in that part of the state under the jurisdiction of North Tipperary County Council. It says so in legislation. Prior to that, it was in the administrative county of Tipperary (North Riding), which the same legislation abolished. Prior to that, it was in the judicial county of Tipperary. Prior to that, it was in the Barony of Eliogarty. Prior to that, it was in the Kingdom of Eile (Ely O'Carroll). Prior to that, it was under the sway of the Eoghanacht. Prior to that, it all gets a bit foggy. To Joe King - cool your jets. Misplaced Pages is no place for personal abuse. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed! Well, not really, since I know you've been editing the article. And the starting fifteen? Or even the subs? How about the losing football semi-finalists (and how did they manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?) - how many were Fingallians and how many Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdownians? And how do you say that anyway? If it's a bona fide county there must be a name for its inhabitants. Scolaire (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The unilateral attempted one-man abolition of County Dublin categories in the encyclopaedia is flagrant vandalism without consensus (agreement by one administrator is insufficient) and a profound structural disruption. The county has been split only in an administrative sense while the original county persists in many ways, officially and unofficially, and remains widely recognised as a legitimate category as others have pointed out, above. The county has not simply disappeared into thin air — not even in the minds of the politicians and administrators who operate within the new structures. The creation of three new county structures was a parallel creation, not a destruction of the old county, which has not gone away. The legislation did not abolish County Dublin; it created new administrative entities within it. People in Northern Ireland continue to use the old county names when discussing the place, alongside the new administrative structures. The emergence of one does not cancel the other; there is a coexistence of new and old categories for different needs, applications and purposes. I am relieved to discover that this conversation has been started because the slash-and-burn of many established Dublin categories in Misplaced Pages without any consensus is alarming and without legitimacy. --O'Dea (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for panic; neither the Conty Dublin page nor the Category:County Dublin page has disappeared, nor will they. Some sub-categories of Category:County Dublin (such as Headlands (with 1 page - Howth)) have been deleted. But fear not - there has been no loss of information. Howth Head is now nestled in the Category:Geography of Fingal County. This is its proper home as Fingal County Council has jurisdiction over Howth and all of Fingal County. Many sub-categories of Category:County Dublin will never be deleted. For instance "History", "People from Dublin". It would be impossible to extricate them and an exercise in futulity. The same may not be said for other sub-cats; those with a heavy geographic bias can and should move to their natural homes. At the moment, most of the geographic type cats are being put inot 1 overall wrapper e.g. Category:Geography of Fingal County. This is just to assist in the heavy lifting. It does not preclude the possibility that at some time in the future it might be a good idea to break it into further sub-cats (e.g. Rivers, Mountains etc). At the moment the population of the cat does not warrent it, but that may all change. If I was to get some assistance in this heavy lifting, the process of sub-cat creation could be speeded up. One final complaint, I think that the dissing of Administrators that has gone on in this thread is a disgrace and should stop. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The rivers and mountains of Dublin are in County Dublin, a persistent geographic category, and that is the location taught in geography courses. One sees in Dublin administrative planning documents concerning management of the River Dodder that South Dublin and Dublin City agree to pool administrative and research resources, and to act in a mutually coordinated way to create plans for the care of the transcendent entity, the river, which winds its way from the mountains to the sea, oblivious to administrative borders. The river transcends those categories, so the new administrative county bodies, in a sense, deliberately dissolve their own boundaries in administrative partnership to cooperate with each other in recognition of that boundary-transcending physical Dodder reality. They are flexible enough to realise that the Dodder is not just in South Dublin, or in Dublin City, but has a larger presence, reflected by the more all-embracing term County Dublin, the legitimacy of which persists without friction or question for most people living in the county. It is alien to Dublin geographic realities to apply new county definitions which have been established purely for bureaucratic convenience, especially when these new administrative entities themselves demonstrate a sharp awareness of the need to operate and exist beyond their own administrative definitions and identities, as described. The new counties were not established to erase or cancel the entity, County Dublin, but only to streamline its administration, its interior clockwork; not to dismantle the rich cultural heritage and lived physical realities of the county. --O'Dea (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Howth Head, considered as a geographic object, belongs in a geographic category, County Dublin. It was never intended by the legislation to shoehorn the headland into what is essentially a piece of bureaucratic machinery called Fingal County, which serves a different function. It is a simple category mistake. --O'Dea (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Observation: There is another aspect to all this that requires urgent consideration: User:Laurel_Lodged has unilaterally removed all Category:Mountains and hills of County Dublin tags from all articles about mountains in County Dublin, then he proposed Category:Mountains and hills of County Dublin as a candidate for speedy deletion because it was now empty! Such breathtaking wholesale unilateralist destruction is vandalism. Such definitive activity on such a scale must be discussed and agreed beforehand, or else anyone could trample his muddy boots destructively and carelessly all over other people's work. Fortunately I saw the empty category before the speedy deletion occurred, and rescued it in time, but it forced me to re-tag a bundle of mountain articles; in other words, I was forced to waste my time undoing User:Laurel_Lodged's assault on the county. It is instructive to read the contribution history of this user to see the destructive zeal for erasing existing categories in many other articles beyond Dublin. --O'Dea (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"I have taken both these precedents as permission to do likewise to the 2 Tipperary entities. My interpretation of the policy has been upheld by the administrator User:Fastily" The second sentence has nothing to do with the first one. What the admin said at User talk:Laurel Lodged#Stop was:

I've deleted the categories under speedy deletion criterion C1 because they are empty and have been tagged with a {{db-c1}} for more than 4 days. Policywise, Laurel Lodged's tags are correct. Jnestorius, if you still feel there is a need for the categories, you may recreate them, but be sure to populate them, otherwise, they will only be deleted again.

The admin was commenting on my use of the {{hangon}} tag and said nothing about the depopulation of the categories which preceded their speedy-deletion. jnestorius 17:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The rivers and mountains of Dublin are in County Dublin, a persistent geographic category". This is untrue. The rivers and mountains are persistent; County Dublin, like all man-made institutions is transitory. See Thurles above for a litany of transitiory entities. Only sophistry would combine these two things into the same sentance. To which county then would you allocate the River Shannon? Is it not accurate to list all the counties through which it flows? By this logic the River Liffey should be listed in the Cat:geography of counties Wicklow, Kildate, South Dublin, Fingal and Dublin City. Conversely, where a geographic feature such as Howth Head is confined to just one county (Fingal), why would it be mentioned in another? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"The admin was commenting on my use of the {{hangon}} tag ". It wuld be more accurate to say that the Admin was commenting of your abuse of the tag. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, there are several different issues involved in Laurel Lodge's recent blitz of category changes and I don't think it's helpful to tangle them together:

1. moving articles from category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" to category "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc"
2. deleting category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" instead of leaving it as a supercategory of "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc"
3. merging categories "Rivers of SouthTipp" and "Mountains of SouthTipp" into "Geography of SouthTipp"
4. an overarching excessive boldness and lack of prior consultation

While Odea and I both object to 4, Odea seems to disagree strongly with 1 whereas I don't. My objections are to 2 and 3. jnestorius 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Regarding 1, the issue is not just confined to the categories. User:Laurel Lodged is also unilaterally changing the leads in articles from "XYZ is a Foo on County Dublin/Tipp" to "XYZ is a Foo in County Fingal/South Tipp/etc.". Relevant fields in related infoboxes are also being changed. I object to this as well as category changes (although I wouldn't object to, say, "XYZ is a Foo in County Dublin. It lies in the administrative area of Fingal County Council". I also object to 2, 3 and 4. - Joe King (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is quite disruptive behavior and should be taken much more seriously by Laurel Lodged than I believe he/she is doing so. He/she might believe that he/she is on solid ground but this kind of behavior is not welcome. Emptying out entire categories and then nominating them for speedy deletion is not as clever as I believe he/she thinks it is. Neither is the slow-burn edit warring (e.g. 1, 2, 3).

This is even before we discuss the merits of his/her additions. example: "County Dublin was one of the counties of the Kingdom of Ireland (and later the United Kingdom..." Eh - County Dublin was a local authority area until 1994 so he/she can add the Republic of Ireland to that list also; but more to the point: County Dublin has gone nowhere. As Joe King points out, it is a relevant geographic area used in Ireland today. Speaking of it in the past tense is a fringe POV.

To follow jnestorius' lead of untangling things, what are we discussing in this thread?

1. Was Laurel Lodged acting with consensus?
2. Should Laurel Lodged dissist in making these kind of edits?
3. Are we going to undo these edits?
4. Is there desire to discuss any of them?
5. What should happen to Laurel Lodged?

I think it's clear that the answer so (1) and (2) are 'no' and 'yes' respectively. I think the answer to (3) is 'yes' also - but it is quite a lot of work to undo. I think the answer to (4) is 'maybe' (the question of whether e.g. cat Tipp S/Tipp N should exist and be a subcat of Tipp). As for (5), I think the community the community needs to spell out that Laurel Lodged has to to accept that his/her POV on this matter is a fringe theory and that if he/she continues with this approach to editing, the community will take away his/her editing privileges. --RA (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Scolaire (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Agree 100% - Joe King (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by Scolaire's agreement. Is this the same Scolaire who contributed to the discussion on Wikiproject Ireland: Splitting Dublin. In that thread, Scolaire opposed the merger on the grounds that " but somebody with the time and the inclination should remove Category:County Dublin from all Dublin City-specific articles, since they are already in the sub-cat". I was convinced by this and other arguments and ended up opposing my own proposal. Now I find Scolaire opposing his own proposal. All very strange. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

You've made sure to get your ad hominem in here before proposing to lay aside ad hominem. Nice one! See, there is not a single diff in this entire discussion, so I can't see what it is you've been doing. I assumed, because that is what the discussion suggested, that what you were doing was replacing County Dublin with County Fingal or whatever. There is clearly no consensus for doing that. If what you're doing is adding County Fingal as well as County Dublin, then I disagree with that for the same reason that I disagree with having County Dublin as well as Dublin City. In a nutshell, a place within the city should be in Category:Dublin; a place outside the city should be in Category:County Dublin - straightforward, common sense and the consensus view. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's lay aside the ad hominem attacks and stick with the substantive issues. Turning to Jnestorious's list of alleged misdemeanors: "deleting category "Foos of Dublin/Tipperary" instead of leaving it as a supercategory of "Foos of Fingal/SouthTipp/etc". This is in fact 3 different questions.

1. Should the category of "Education in North Tipp" be created withinin the Cat:North Tipp? I believe the answer is "yes" and I'd be very interested in any views to the contrary.
2. Should those articles currently in the category "Education in Tipp" (e.g. colleges and schools in a given physical location) be moved to the Category that most immediately includes them (i.e. Cat:Education in North Tipp)? I believe the answer is "yes" and I'd be very interested in any views to the contrary.
3. Such a logical process will inevitably result in the emptying of all schools from the less immediate cat to the most immediate cat. What do you do when this results in the emptying of the Cat:Education in Tipp? Do you leave the cat in some kind of zombie half life? I believe that the answer to this is "no". It was for this very reason that the {{hangon}} tag exists.

As it's late I'll turn to the third in Jnestorius's list of alleged misdemeanors tomorrow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting on point 3; and don't understand "It was for this very reason that the {{hangon}} tag exists.". jnestorius 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Joe King, RA and O'Dea have stated the position I agree with very well. While I am reluctant to bring an ANI or RfC/U one of these options may be the only way to halt Laurel Lodged's disruptive editing. ww2censor (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the position of RA, as outlined above in 5 questions section. Snappy (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Joe King's 5 points, I think a decision on 4 (discussing) should be reached before a decision on 3 (undoing). If, say, it is decided to keep towns categorised into North and South Tipp, then some of the edits that brought this about should be kept, rather than first undone and then redone. jnestorius 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. (I suspect we're going to disagree, but the Tipp/NTipp/STipp etc. question is a perfectly valid discussion.) Is there anything else from these edits anyone wants discussed? --RA (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Irish nobility

Is there anything else anyone wants discussed? Yes. I haven't had time to analyse the trend of User:Laurel Lodged's similar swathe-cutting through many articles on Irish nobility, so I have not discovered his logic in removing so many people from the Category:Irish nobility, such as Baron Inchiquin, to cite an example. One problem is that Lodge doesn't bother his arse to write the sort of edit summaries that might reveal his thinking. So, could Laurel address this question, please: Why are you stripping nobles of their category? --O'Dea (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and leaving "Lists of Irish monarchs" and "European royal families", both piped to "Thomond"? A sense of proportion seems to be lacking, there. Scolaire (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The contribution above is out of chronological order. Why? Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it follows from what O'Dea said, and would have been impossible to understand if I'd added it after your response. Scolaire (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Language please User:Odea - children might be watching. No noble has been stripped. Simply eliminating double or triple duplication with the Nobility moves. In every case, a noble category existed for the family. For example the Cat:MacCarthy dynasty logically reports to the Cat:Ancient Irish dynasties which reports to the Cat:Irish noble families which reports to the Cat:Irish nobility. All very ordered, hierarchical and logical, I'm sure you'll agree. And no losss of information. The reader is led logicaly from the highly general to the highly specific. The only nobles now left in the Cat:Irish Nobility can anomalies with no natural home. I was thinking of creating a Cat:Noble Irish Women or Cat:Irish Nobility (women) as this would effectively purge the remainder of the Cat:Irish nobility and redress a glaring gender imbalance. While The UK has female equivalents for all ranks of nobility (countesses, duchesses, baronesses etc), Ireland does not have the numbers to warrent such excessive sub-categorisation. IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If you were thinking of creating these new cats, would you not think of opening a new thread here and telling people what you're thinking, and asking them if they agree? On current form, it's odds-on they won't. Unilateral batch re-arrangement of cats without discussion is disruptive. Have you not copped that yet? Scolaire (talk) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The language of User:Scolaire seems to lack a sense of proportion. In the kangaroo court that this thread has degenerated into, I am automatically guilty. No need for evidence anymore; if I wrote it, then it must be wrong. Well guys, I've news for you - I created no new cats in Irish Nobility. They already existed. Let's not loose sight of the fact that this is an encyclopedia - the rule of science, not passionate partisanship is supposed to prevail. For that reason, order, logic and hierarchy are always to be preferred over disorder and duplication. Ad hominem reminder number 2 for User:Scolaire: tackle the ball, not the man. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Woah! "would you not think of opening a new thread here and telling people what you're thinking?" - that's the ball. "The language of User:Scolaire seems to lack a sense of proportion" - that's the man; "In the kangaroo court that this thread has degenerated into, I am automatically guilty. No need for evidence anymore; if I wrote it, then it must be wrong" - that's off the chart! I did not mean to imply that any idea of yours is "wrong", only that the majority on this page seem to prefer an approach that is different from yours. If you want to prove me wrong, you should initiate a calm discussion. Since the remark is open to misinterpretation, I am striking it. By the way, can you provide a diff for reminder number one? I'm not sure where that was. Scolaire (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Those objectionable comments from Laurel Lodged above, referring on this occasion to Scolaire, are laughable, coming from someone who has been making personal attacks on other editors over the past few months (as can be seen from his contributions). It is Misplaced Pages policy not to make personal attacks other editors! Blue Luger (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! the fickleness of human nature. We all object to personal attacks other editors but then can't resist the temptation of one last dig, can we? Laughable, isn't it? Lord make me a believer, but not yet. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Education in North Tipperary County

Should the category of "Education in North Tipp" remain within the Cat:North Tipp? Should it be populated with all the schools, colleges and institutions of education that are located in North Tipperary County?

Support as they are in the immediate county, not the wider historical county. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What kind of rubbish is this? Aren't we still discussing all these issues above? Kindly stop these silly proposals and sillier voting. Snappy (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

From other dicussions, I know that User:Snappy has an antipathy to voting. I find that it's the best way to ensure that a consensus has been achieved, but is by no means conclusive. In any case, User:Snappy's concerns are entirely unwarrented in this case as the discussion is just a discussion at this point, though it might proceed to a vote late. The discussion itself was suggested by User:Jnestorius "With regard to Joe King's 5 points, I think a decision on 4 (discussing) should be reached before a decision on 3 (undoing).". If User:Snappy has an issue with User:Jnestorius's suggestion, perhaps he should raise it in his talk page and not unduely clutter this discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, voting is evil! As for cluttering pages, I could never do as good a job as you! Snappy (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the above contribution. I think you've made your intent and motivations perfectly clear to everybody. Perhaps I'm not paranoid after all - maybe they are all out to get get me. :-) Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. You say that this is "just a discussion", but discussions don't have posts beginning with "Support" in them. By putting "Support" in your initial posting, you seem to be stating that it's a poll. Which is it? Scolaire (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the physical location of a building is sufficient in all cases; many institutions have a wider catchment area. But as a first approximation, a more specific location is probably appropriate for most schools. I don't like the name of the category, though: Category:Education in South Tipperary would be shorter and no more ambiguous. jnestorius 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Category:Education in County Tipperary

Without wishing to prejudice the discussion at 24 above, I'd like to start a discussion (which might or might not proceed to a vote) about the category "Education in County Tipperary". In the hypothetical event of all the listed items in the category being moved to either "Category:Education in North Tipperary County" or "Category:Education in South Tipperary County", should the category remain in existance? Would it be more sensible to delete in that eventuality? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the deletion in the circumstances described above (you'll not be surprised to read). Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral: the hypothetical event is unlikely to occur; I don't !vote on hypothetical proposals. This also goes for number 24 above. Scolaire (talk) 13:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• The category (and all similar categories: I hope we're not going to have a litany of separate sections) should remain as a supercategory of Category:Education in North/South Tipperary and a subcategory of Category:Education in the Republic of Ireland by county. If this arrangement offends a minority of users' sense of parsimony, that minority of users will find it fairly easy to get over it. jnestorius 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

British Isles

Need some input here Template_talk:British_Isles#Title . Thanks Gnevin (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

37 million deaths in British India

I proposed the addition of some content relating to famines in India to FA India. It's been stripped down for various reasons and the current statement reads something like:

We are looking to form a consensus on whether and how this content can be included in India. If you have an interest, please participate in the discussion at Talk:India#Famine.2C_starvation_deaths_during_British_era and other relevant sections on the same page. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ "Microsoft Word - Volume 1 2006 isbn.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-10-27.